2 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 17 Jan \ on: Chaumian ecash is the patricians choice.... bitcoin
There's lots of misunderstanding around this, as with most things privacy.
ECash is only only private when transacted within its own mint. Sending ECash from one mint to another, settled by Lightning, is still a Lightning payment from one custodian to another. The custodian still knows where its going, what amount, and when.
This means that if anonset is small, as it would be in hobbyist nodes, its pretty much useless for privacy.
NGO's, Fedi et al, aren't raising millions for your hobbyist node though.
They're buying their way into the Lightning ecosystem so that it becomes compatible with large banks debt-tokens, and people are falling for it like any other shitcoin technobabble they can pretend to understand and virtue signal over.
True and good point of inter-mint transactions...but this is where having very large custodians becomes a feature.
I'm not sure about your view that mints are going to be tiny hobbyist groups.....why wouldn't Coinbase, et al be mints? In fact, in order for "mints" to help scale BTC, they need to be large players otherwise it doesn't really help scaling....
reply
large custodians becomes a feature
That's a bad thing, and likely a pre-meditated attack on Bitcoin. Large custodians are where trouble starts, appealing to privacy virtue-signalers only serves to keep them relevant for longer.
The banks NEED this to stay relevant on a Bitcoin standard, that's how you know it's bad for you.
I'm not just waxing philosophical either, it's a major privacy LIABILITY over the long term.
Think out a step, even if these large custodians couldn't know exactly who sent what because of ECash, by nature of existing as a large custodian it create a huge insight into overall Lightning flows. Every inbound and outbound to/from other mints/nodes is data to de-anonymize the network at large. Privacy larps using Coinbase for the anonset would be paradoxically hampering the overall privacy of the network by giving their mint tons of data. Mints are a shitcoin panopticon.
A better world through many small custodians and closer relations is what Bitcoin offers.
ECash is the opposite of that, an attack.
Let's also not pretend it's about scaling either, because SQL achieves the same exact thing. That is why I don't see hobbyist running mints, and mint-to-mint payment wallets as being completely mindless offering nothing but superfluous complexity.
reply
by nature of existing as a large custodian it create a huge insight into overall Lightning flows. Every inbound and outbound to/from other mints/nodes is data to de-anonymize the network at large.
Good point, but I think we need to ask: "Compared to what"
Is this scenario better then current BTC / LN privacy? (It is)
Mints are a shitcoin panopticon
The mint operators are blind to transfer / amounts. What information do you see they would be gathering?
Let's also not pretend it's about scaling either, because SQL achieves the same exact thing.
Well it is about scaling....how do you see Bitcoin onboarding 1B new users?
reply
"Compared to what"
Compared to small, local custodians, running economic nodes.
Is this scenario better then current BTC / LN privacy? (It is)
It doesn't address Bitcoin privacy issues because it's not BTC or LN. It is however centralizing, which is bad for privacy in general.
It can be useful as an access token from a service, where the service rendered should be blinded from the actual payment, but it is not in and of itself good for payments.
What information do you see they would be gathering?
The frequency and aggregate of source/destination on the settlement layer (Bitcoin/LN).
onboarding 1B new users?
SQL
reply